Bad day for Singapore Airlines insurers

[tor lives]

Happened at Changi this morning
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... cy-landing
Not sure weather the jet is right off "hull lose", (she looks pretty badly damaged).
After a similar event in Las Vegas with one of their 777s the aircraft was repaired......so who knows.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... as-airport
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fu-422590/
TOR

[Knotty]

Surely the wing spar would be affected, but then again they fixed the Qantas A380 . This airport has it's fair share of incidents I'm surprised an evacuation wasn't initiated,going by the photos.

[Adam the Akrodude]

Not an ideal start to a trip. Glad all safe on-board.

What happened - the engine blew (loss of oil pressure)? I'm guessing the crew decided it was safer on-board until the fire was extinguished? Sure was a decent fire in the wing huh. Write off/rebuild - who knows? Guess it will be up to SA to do the sums. Only thing that matters of course is all on-board are alive and well.

[tor lives]

I'm guessing the crew decided it was safer on-board until the fire was extinguished? Sure was a decent fire in the wing huh.

Based upon all accepted conventional wisdom, guidelines, and procedures, this should have absolutely been a full evacuation of the jet, (and it should have been completed in 90 seconds)......why that didn't occur is a matter for the investigators to determine.
Leaving pax onbaord a burning jet in this apparent circumstance is a mighty big risk, especially with a fire of such obvious severity and intensity.
This is the risk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERxRFlZTjSE
From an evacuation perspective the fundamental difference between today's SQ event and the QF32 A380 incident at the same airport several years ago, is that the A380 wasn't on friggen fire , and a precautionary disembarkation was the best course of action given the circumstances of that event.
I suspect the Cabin Crew may not have fully conveyed to the aeroplane drivers just how severe the fire actually was, but of course this is just conjecture on my part.
I will be most interested to see just how this investigation pans out.
At any rate, here is the next ready-made episode of Air Crash Investigation .
TOR

[tor lives]

This happened to a Dynamic Airways 767-200 last year, (no relation to my current employer Dynamic Crew Training Pty Ltd ).....and it was write-off.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/10/29 ... mesticNews
TOR

[Uncle Julio]

I'd be interested to hear what the communication was.. Between aircraft, ATC, fire commander.. Video I saw put the trucks in the vicinity within 45 seconds not 5 minutes as someone mentioned.

If communication to aircraft from fire commander or whoever was that the fuselage is not breached and they are fighting the fire successfully, one can see why the captain might not have commanded an evacuation.

Further... Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual advice states a non-rushed, methodical and timely approach to evacuating is preferable to rushing.

Without all the information it's pointless being subjective.. If it's found in the ensuing investigation that the Captain should have evacuated and put people's lives at unnecessary risk, then he has to live with that finding..in today's event, the hull wasn't breached and there were no injuries.. I'd say that a job well done by all.

That's my two bobs worth..

[tor lives]

Without all the information it's pointless being subjective.. If it's found in the ensuing investigation that the Captain should have evacuated and put people's lives at unnecessary risk, then he has to live with that finding..in today's event, the hull wasn't breached and there were no injuries.. I'd say that a job well done by all.
That's my two bobs worth..

Uncle, you are of course correct in your assertion that no assumptions should be made or conclusions drawn until after the investigators have completed their job in it's entirety, (having thoroughly followed the laid-down requirements as prescribed in ICAO Annex 13 of course). After all that is only fair, just, and reasonable for all parties concerned, (and as an industry "Just Culture" advocate and Investigator, I absolutely concur with your view). I would subjectively suggest however that, at least on the face of it, and given the similarities between this and other events, (which I have linked), had I been the Cabin Manager, you can be reasonably assured that this jet would have been evacuated in 90 seconds, (in consultation with the operating Captain of course). Ask yourself.....if your house or car was ablaze to that extent, would you stay in it???. Obviously some kind of "risk management" process would have been undertaken but, at least on anecdotal and preliminary observation of this event, to leave pax sitting in a burning aircraft with a fire of that magnitude, intensity, and severity was, in my humble view, the wrong choice, (indeed it is my unsubstantiated "gut feel" that the fact no one was killed or injured in today's event was more good luck than good Emergency Management). Remember, the jet was only 2 hours ex Changi....I am sure a significant amount of fuel would have still been on board when it landed, thereby presenting an unacceptable risk in these apparent dire circumstances. I will say this though.....well done to the fire crews.
And that's my two bobs worth, and I could be completely wrong.....time will tell I guess .
TOR

[Adam the Akrodude]

One thing I'll add is that as a pax down the back end, I would have been shitting myself wondering when the wing was going to explode!

[tor lives]

I think it is important to remember that the fundamental role of the Airport Fireys in these circumstances is not to save the aircraft, but rather suppress the fire until such times as all pax/crew have safely evacuated.
And if your are wondering where the 90 second evacuation rule comes from, (i.e. the max amount of time you have to evacuate an aircraft using only half the available doors/exits)....that's actually the anticipated "burn-through" time of the structure. From 91 seconds onwards you can fully anticipate the "orange hot stuff" getting from the outside in .
Precautionary Disembarkations have their place in "Emergency Management", but if the aircraft is obviously on fire.....all bets are off, and it is time to get out!!!
TOR

[Uncle Julio]

Ray.. Let me clarify what I was saying, I understand what your saying, this is not time for pissing competitions.. If I was the captain, I likely would have evacuated based on the info I received.. It's obvious that 30-40 litres of engine oil isn't going to cause that kind of fire, when in doubt, evacuate.

I get examined twice a year for CASA mandated cyclic sim checks. I have evacuated with success more times than I care to remember in these checks.( with flying colours too ). What I can also say is no two evacuations are the same. I've evacuated for uncontained engine fires, engine separations, cargo fires, landing gear collapsing on landing.. You name it.. In fact here's one for you, cat C cargo hold.. Would you evacuate for a cargo fire alarm if the floor was hot with a Cat C cargo fire or would you wait for smoke? Some people I know have and haven't.. Would you evacuate for landing gear collapse with no fire? Some very very experienced checkies I know have said they wouldn't.. Most guys would... Who's right and who's wrong?

Go ahead and research on the net as well.. But if you want the best article on evacuations I have ever seen it was put together by my good mates at Boeing... I'll send it to you to save you bashing Google..

Like you, I have investigated as well.. I have 3 years credible years of working at ATSB, I'm a current Flight Safety Officer, have attended and spoken at conferences in NZ and the USA... I also represent hundreds of pilots on Flight Safety and Technical Committees and Flight Data analysis program's.... To cap it off I'm a graduate of the University of Southern California accident investigator course... One of two in the world with credibility to investigate alongside the NTSB..the other being Cranfield in case your wondering...I deal with Boeing direct and I work with Southwest Airlines as well to better safety and ops.. To say I understand where you are coming from.. Is an understatement... I don't need to be lectured.

I get what you are saying.. I wait with baited breath for the investigation report on this one because it's likely going to have some good learnings for evacuations... Possibly even the startle factor that may be associated with these issues..

I'll likely be in Kansas in a few months time at infoshare discussing this.. In attendance will be Boeing, Airbus, NTSB, FAA and all the US airlines.. I will learn as much as I can from this as this will certainly come up for discussion...as we are supposed to do as professionals..

Adam... Allot,of people were wondering the same.. Didn't stop them taking video on iPhones though did it.. Next comment?

Over to you for the last word.. I know once upon a time you told me you like having the last word.. no offence of course!